Thomas v. Orange Regional Medical Center
Opinion
Defendants’ moving papers were deficient since the addresses of the two proposed nonparty witnesses who would purportedly be inconvenienced by a trial in Bronx County were not provided. Nor was the nature and materiality of their anticipated testimony detailed (see Jacobs v Banks Shapiro Gettinger Waldinger & Brennan, LLP, 9 AD3d 299 [2004]; Nolan v Mount Vernon Hosp., 172 AD2d 368 [1991]).
We note however that, contrary to Supreme Court’s finding, defendant’s motion was not untimely. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Friedman, Moskowitz, Acosta and Richter, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
90 A.D.3d 479 (Thomas v. Orange Regional Medical Center) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.